fromCONCENTRATE

My Digital Media Research Masters Final Project will require a theoretical understanding of the alliances and interactions between law and digital technologies and it is my hope that this learning can be aided through discussion with both the designers, programmers and theorists resident in Culture Lab and also legal academics across at the Law School.

Tomorrow, at 2pm, I’ll be making a presentation to a PHD Research group at Newcastle Law School to introduce my research and thinking regarding areas where technology, art and law appear to intersect:

Title: Interfacing with Law

John O’Shea is working on an AHRC Research Project at Newcastle University’s Culture Lab proposing and prototyping new kinds of technological ‘interface’ between citizen and law.
The convergence of digital-media collaboration tools (such as wikis), G.P.S. enabled mobile devices, and ubiquitous social networking technologies present not only new challenges for legislation but also new possibilities for governments, corporations, communities and citizens to interact with legal frameworks.
John will present examples from his current avenues of research and open up a discussion regarding the implications of current technologies for citizens and the legal profession.

As well as discussing current examples of “Web 2.0″ technologically enabled initiatives between citizens, government and legislation I would also like to direct some focus onto instances where the two streams – technology and law  – seem to merge and hybridise instigating problematic scenarios brought about neither by citizen nor government BUT instead simply through the advancement and free proliferation of new technologies.

Real practical examples of these unanticipated pairings are often evidenced in the tabloid media:

Top: Recorded data in G.P.S. systems (potential evidence of wrong-doing) causing headaches for businesses and lawyers.
Below: Low unit cost of fingerprint scanners is enabling new, non governmental, identification schemes.
Bottom: To counter thieves, designers technologically ensure that mobile phone owners keep their device on their person at all times (again using G.P.S.)

In each of the three story examples, technological innovation is portrayed in an unswervingly positive light and, although each of these developments could have very obvious implications for the privacy of individuals involved, these concerns are not voiced.

In his ISEA2009 keynote, Clive Van Heerden of the Phillips Technology ‘Design Probes’ division discussed these kind of throwaway news articles and used the phrase ‘weak signals’ to liken them to a kind of cultural indicator.

This idea has parity with one of Marshall Mcluhan’s 1969 conceptions of the role of art and artists in relation to technology:

I think of art, at its most significant as a DEW line, a DISTANT EARLY WARNING system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it.

More info regarding DISTANT EARLY WARNING at this excellent site HERE!

We are required, for our DOING assignment, to draw an interesting shape using Processing and export it as a PDF. file so that we can cut it out using the lazer-cutter…

My thoughts have returned to the unusual Prenzlauer Berg gravestone and I have decided to make a model.  The black outline will be cut from leftover acrylic plastic in the workshop and the design element (in red above) will be engraved (is engraved the right word – sounds quite grand -  anyway, it will be cut also but not all of the way through.)

Having already made an approximation of the spirograph design I have worked with Processing’s bezier() function to make an outline shape similar to that of the original stone.  It took some time to understand how to programme the curves but once the bezier principle is understood it is actually very simple.  Basically, the curve is constructed through combining both sets of co-ordinates for the construction lines (in red below).

Click for sketch and code.

PDF. here also. (any questions please add comment.)

(this instance of DIY gravestone manufacturing may or may not have been inspired by this Home Office video designed to help young people with everyday problems…)

Berlin: The Transmediale 2010 opening was an eerie disconcerting spectacle featuring:

• a manmade laser rainbow across the sky
• ominous droning from the bell tower
• mass gathering outside of the House of World Cultures

Price and Value of Cultural Work – Session:

Liquid Democracies – Discussion:

• Steve Lambert – EYEBEAM
• Matteo Pasquinelli – Digital Neofeudalism

What is Futurity Now?

(insert blog post here!)

Rainbow on 12seconds.tv

Below are links to un-edited wiki notes on various sessions:

Wed 3rd Feb 2009

• Price and Value of Cultural Work
• Basis of Free Culture

As outlined in previous posts I have developed a Mk 1 hardware element of a ’simple twisting interface’ based on the intuitive and inventive action familiar to anyone who has ever experienced, what is technically known as,  a cassette tape fuck-up.

I presented a working prototype for my internal assessment at Culture Lab on the 9th of December 2009, where I used the device in conjunction with an arduino board which was relaying the analog information to MAXmsp in order to trigger and control sample audio files.

Thoughts on interface:

Aspects of the Mk 1 hardware are not ideal.  The prototype device is not using a truly ‘continuous’ potentiometer (if such a thing were to exist) – it is using a standard potentiometer which has been butchered and hacked to go all of the way round. The problem is that this leaves a gap in the turn (the resistive element inside is ‘c’ shaped rather than a continuous ‘o’) and as a result of trying to work with this, the principles of code for the current Max patch are heavily compromised.

The demo MAX patch is very buggy and only worked intermittently during the presentation – it is clear that it needs much more rigorous development.

• For a Mk 2 it would be highly desirable to find a better solution than the modified potentiometer for sending ‘full twist’ analogue data to arduino.
• A new MAX patch could then be developed which uses ‘clean’ change in acceleration data rather than periodically polling for difference in values  (which is the clumbsy way the demo ‘worked’)

Thoughts on concept:

During the presentation I was asked ‘why exactly THIS twist?’ and ‘why THIS outcome?’

The action of twisting a pen or pencil in the reel of a cassette tape is something that the majority of the adult population will at some time have done – regardless of technological confidence.  The ‘twisting action’ is the result of some kind of inate human inventiveness which arises in an attempt to fix the tape.

I had begun working with this simple twist because the action is very satisfying, and I wanted to see what kinds of things could be done with the resulting data output that might have some kind of ‘intuitive’ relevance to the cultural associations of the object and so, conceptually speaking ‘feedback’ or echo…

This approach relates to aspects of our recent theoretical study where we considered J. J. Gibson’s ‘Theory of Affordances’ (1977. pp 67-82) in the context of designing for interaction.  Early in the article Gibson, talking about the origin of his theory quotes from ‘Principles of Gestalt Psychology’ (1935, Koffka.)

Each thing says what it is…

…the handle “wants to be grasped” and things “tell us what to do with them

Later though, in a footnote, Gibson warns about making naive assumptions about the simple consequences of our interaction:

THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE WHAT THEY ARE

If the affordances of a thing are perceived correctly, we say that it looks like what it is.  But we must, of course, learn to see what things really are – for example, that the innocent-looking leaf is really a nettle or that the helpful-sounding politician is really a demagogue.  And this can be very difficult.

Strategy:

It is very interesting to work simply from this one ‘action’ and to try and see how much ‘resolution’ there is within it.  In order to make a successful Mk 2 ’simple twisting interface’ I will take the following steps:

1. use bourns continuous potentiometer to make MAX patch work ‘properly’ for demonstration.  This potentiometer allows 10 full turns (based on an internal spiral) so this will allow full development of the patch – key is that I understand how to calibrate MAX and control samples using the device.
2. Make MAX patch work with Rotary Encoder (Encoder to Arduino – how? then Arduino to MAX – filter prior to debugged patch?)
3. Make processing piece using rotary encoder - Arduino to Processing-
4. Do something interesting!

Finally

What might be  interesting outcomes if this were to be a kind of instrument for triggering music tracks, for instance, rather than a mere demonstration of principle? (and art object?)

It might be interesting if:

• initial turning ie. too slow, too fast, speeding up corresponded to audible experience (akin to ’scrubbing’ the playhead)
• turning at a consistent speed for a set period (eg. 5 seconds) allowed the track to take over and play itself
• twisting fast toggled thru available tracks (in this way, more than one track could be played at a time and tracks could be cued using the scrubbing action.)

Later this month I will be submitting my final project proposal and, having identified my research area – “Law as Art” I need to outline the territory I am going to explore and suggest a path through.  What are my aims? What specifically am I intending to do?

It is as a citizen first that I find this area of research immediately arresting – in the U.K., we are all subject to the rule of law, but what do we actually know about how laws are made?

Gulf between Citizen and Law

Every week, central government introduces new legislation regulating all aspects of our lives and we, as citizens, are in effect the end-users: consumers of law – What understanding do we have about the process from which law emerges?
Even the most commonplace of legal documentation, such as a Tenancy Agreement, is totally impenetrable for a majority of people – littered with seemingly contradictory technical terminology.  Legal documentation actually seems like an irrelevence – ‘non-working documents’ – which are completely unneeded until exactly when it is too late – when we come into contact with the law through abuse, accident and tragedy.  In a confused ‘car crash’ scenario we employ specialists to perform an autopsy on our paperwork.

2694 Humorists tell us there is no act of our lives which can be performed without breaking through some one of the many meshes of the law by which our rights are so carefully guarded; and those learned in the law, when they give advice without the usual fee, and in the confidence of friendship, generally say, ‘Pay, pay anything rather than go to law;’

Chapter on Legal Memoranda: Mrs Beeton’s Household Management, first published 1861.

There seems to be an insurmountable gulf between citizens and the specialised processes of law making and our legal architecture – the framework of rules which fences and underpins our culture.

I would like to investigate and suggest new ways for citizens to become engaged with law and ultimately to be involved in the formulation and enactment of law, in a real and creative sense.

Prototype intuitive interface / proof of concept / instrument – successful?

Original drawing identified basic principle:

1. Twist pencil in tape reel
2. This action twists potentiometer
3. potentiometer relays DATA
4. Arduino board receives ANALOG data in 0 –> 5V
5. Arduino script translates ANALOG voltage to DIGITAL serial data
6. Serial data transfered via USB lead into MAXmsp patch
7. MAXmsp patch interprets data allowing user to triggers samples

Although I considered different configurations (eg. geering) the simplest approach for this test was to directly engage the modified ‘continuous’ potentiometer with the pen lid through the cassette reel.

AND this just felt really ‘RIGHT’!

When building the MAX patch I attempted to identify 3 ‘triggers’ that I wanted to isolate from the user input data:

• twisting
• not twisting
• twisting fast

I basically attempted to identify these 3 triggers using the METRO object to periodically (every 1 sec and every 200 milliseconds) read data coming into MAXmsp and then, using conditional statements eg. pictured, compare the previous two values to identify the rate of change.

I am aware that this is in no way the most sophisticated way of using MAX to interpret this rate-of-change / acceleration data but, this was the fastest way for me to prototype this and get a result with my fledgling knowledge of MAX.

Working on this piece has totally re-affirmed this statement:

simpler interface = more complex interaction

It is fascinating how much data is contained within such a simple single twisting action and there are really huge ramifications for my future ‘user interface’ work if I can develop my skills at using code and software to interpret and translate this data.

Download my ‘Echoes’ MAX patch here.

- PLEASE COMMENT! -

…absence of a higher level interfacing tool creates a barrier to participation… (previous post)

The basic corkscrew twists into a cork and (with a bit of umph!) the cork is pulled out of the bottle, releasing wine.  The Wing Corkscrew (above) does exactly the same thing, but assisted by two levers either side, (mechanical advantage) our cork is removed with a little less umph!

Does my glass of wine taste different – better or worse – as a result of the bottle being opened with mechanical assistance?

Tools:

• Humans are animals that use tools.
• Tools extend capability.
• Extension is technology is (digital) media. McLuhan.

Interfaces:

• Between-ness.
• Physical Interface / Software Interface / Human Computer Interface
• HANDS-ON?

Instruments:

• Precision
• Potentially CREATIVE tools…
• Arduino (electronics, code, physics, physicality)
• MAXmsp (graphical, GUI, programming)
• OpenFrameworks (C++, more lower level code)

BUT, let’s remain focused on the wine (and how to get at it) not the corkscrew, crowbar, cannon or wateva…

(This is my FIRST blog post at Culture Lab, on my new research blog.)
(And, this is the ONLY blog post I’ll be writing in the FIRST-PERSON.) (I HOPE.)

(This is a very important question.)
(This is the question I need to be asking every day.)

In terms of my exploration of (digital) culture I WANT to start from HOPE.
Deep down, I am an OPTIMIST / ROMANTIC / IDEALIST.
I am excited by (the emergence of) incredible, technologically facilitated, opportunities for NEW social / cultural / democratic models presented by:
-    myriad, normalised, de-centralised, social network platforms
-    oft-cited ’second-life’ virtual environments
-    democratiZation ov knowledge: wikis, blogs, information-revolution FREECULTURE and tha open-source
-    digital RE-PRODUC-ABILITY, de-author(IZ)ed cultural production, unprecedented free sharing ov IDEAS

AND, specifically, I am interested in the manifestation of these new modes in the realm of ART making.

(BUT)

(I am also prone to FEAR.)
(Everyone is prone to FEAR)
(I’m a former luddite and my favourite film is ‘The Terminator’)
(Sometimes, I get out ov bed the wrong-side, and I start from FEAR.)

Plenty of reasons to FEAR:
-    new social spheres will replicate and accelerate old (visible and invisible) power-structure-hierarchies, cliques and violence – RESULT – increased GLOBAL SCALE social / cultural /political /economic ISOLATION, EXPLOITATION and ‘CYBER-BULLYING’
-    ALSO, inhuman horrors will be made easier by perceptual DETACHMENT from source through technological EXTENSION.
-    Challenge to existing 20th Century Copyright methods, PATENTS and INDUSTRY triggers an unprecedented backlash against SHARING (peer-to-peer prosecutions, chilling effect etc.)
-    access to technologies and cultural production remains SPECIALIZED whilst elites chat at conferences about ACCESSIBILITY…
-    open transparent culture = ZERO PRIVACY (Discuss.)  Potential for OSTRACISM, BLACKMAIL, MUD-THROWIN’ and CENSURE is immense and FACEBOOK is just the beginning.

(At the suggestion of my tutor – Jamie Allen – I simply wanted to put these out there.)
(In my next post I will discuss my own strategies for balancing HOPE against FEAR)
(comments / suggestions / responses welcome :-)

(And YES, I am aware of the ‘FEAR—>LOVE’ blackboard scene from Donnie Darko (below) – thanks!)